OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque

www.oswald-innocent.com

Sunday, August 21, 2016

I believe that surviving Warren Commission lawyer Howard Willins told an outright lie when he wrote recently that the WC earnestly wanted to and sought to disprove the FBI's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. What a crock o' bull. And note that he didn't give any examples of anything they did to try to disprove the FBI's theory.From the beginning, the Warren Commission was about wrapping up the JFK assassination with snug string in a tight package. If they had found conspirators for Oswald, those conspirators would have had to be arrested and tried- and they didn't want that. Those conspirators would have had defense lawyers. Right? And, those lawyers would have been probing and prodding. Right? They didn't want that. They wanted the case closed. They wanted the door shut. They wanted it to be: "Oswald did it. He did it alone. Now, it's time to move on with the business of the country." So, I think Willins is lying through his teeth. And again: he didn't point to any avenues they went down to uncover a conspiracy. And I can think of some avenues they deliberately avoided. Consider the witnesses.All the Warren Commission witnesses were first questioned by the FBI. It was the FBI that compiled the witness list for the Warren Commission- witnesses they had already talked to. So, they knew, in advance, what these witnesses were going to say, and that enabled them to avoid witnesses who were going to say messy things.For instance, the FBI interviewed Carolyn Arnold, but they didn't recommend her to the Warren Commission. That's because Carolyn Arnold first said she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. Do you know about George Wilkins and Zac Strout? I learned about them from John Armstrong. They were Marines who lived and worked with Oswald in Japan. They very much wanted to testify to the Warren Commission. They requested to do so but were denied. And what they were going to tell the Warren Commission is the same thing they told John Armstrong: that they were with Oswald practically 24/7 in Japan, and he never studied Russian or expressed a desire to learn Russian or a desire to go to Russia or a love of Communism or any of that stuff. Consider the facts: Oswald returned from the Far East by ship landing in San Francisco in November 1958. He went on leave for exactly one month. Then, in December 1958, he reported for duty at the Marine radar station at Santa Ana, California, where, from the start, he could speak Russian, read Russian; he listened to Russian records; and he spoke of supporting Communism and wanting to go to Russia, etc. What a difference a month makes, eh? But, the Warren Commission didn't want to hear from Wilkins and Strout. Plus, according to John Armstrong, there were 4 other Marines who wanted to testify similarly who were also rejected by the Warren Commission.You want another example? How about Abraham Bolden? He wanted to speak to the Warren Commission about the failings of the Secret Service, and he applied to do so but was rejected. And you know what happened to him next; he got railroaded for a crime he didn't commit, convicted, and sent to prison for 8 years, and that was done to silence him.And take the issue of Oswald in the doorway. The Warren Commission interviewed several witnesses who said that Lovelady was Doorman. Note that Lovelady was not one of them. At no time did he claim to be Doorman. He and Joseph Ball talked around it. But, those who claimed it were first interviewed by the FBI and were recommended by the FBI. Why were they recommended? It was precisely because they could be counted on to say it. What do you think happened to a witness, who the FBI showed the Altgens photo, who said, "That looks like Oswald to me" or "I could swear I saw Oswald in the doorway"? First, that witness did not get called by the Warren Commission. And second, they were surely told, "No. That isn't Oswald. And you didn't see him in doorway. That's because he was up on the sixth floor shooting at President Kennedy at the time. Now, don't say it again, in public or in private, if you value your life." The Warren Commission could not publish a statement from anybody that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting because: IT WOULD HAVE EVISCERATED THE ENTIRE WARREN REPORT. The 26 volumes? All for naught and burned to a crisp by that one statement. So, it wasn't going to happen. They weren't going to let it in. So, the Warren Commission investigation was like a show trial. It was practically scripted. But, are you aware that Oswald was actually assigned a lawyer during the Warren Commission? However, they didn't call the guy his defense lawyer. They just said he was there to protect Oswald's interests. What's the difference? None; it's just semantics. But, they had to be careful not to imply there was any chance that Oswald was innocent. What did he do? Absolutely nothing. And just imagine what he could have done. Imagine if they had let him interrogate Marina Oswald as a hostile witness."So, Mrs. Oswald, you now claim to know that your husband shot at General Walker, but for two months, you weren't saying that. For two months, you denied it. So, what made you change your mind, and how could you?"Of course, nothing like that happened. I can't find the name of the lawyer who was assigned to "protect Oswald's interests", and I bet you'll have trouble finding it too. Oswald's mother wanted it to be Mark Lane, but Earl Warren refused. But, what a worthless piece of shit Oswald's lawyer was- whoever he was.Admittedly, the Warren Commission did allow a few contrary witnesses. For instance, there were witnesses who claimed to hear shots from the Grass Knoll. They let that in. But, that's because they had an easy explanation for it: echoes. It was harmless. And look how objective and even-handed and fair-minded it made them look. It was actually good PR for them to do it. But, you can't compare someone thinking they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll to someone thinking he or she saw Oswald in the doorway during the shooting. And we know of one person who absolutely did think she saw Oswald at the doorway in the time frame of the shooting: Carolyn Arnold. And that's why her testimony about it, her first, original statement, is so important.When we speak of Oswald having conspirators, the possibility of it, who are we talking about? We're talking about Russians and/or Cubans, aren't we? In forcibly recruiting Earl Warren to head the President's Commission, (he wouldn't take no for an answer) Lyndon Johnson stressed to him the importance of finding Oswald solely responsible because otherwise there could be war, thermonuclear war, in which 100 million could die. I'm pretty sure that's the figure he gave: 100 million. So, Earl Warren knew very well, from the start, that his responsibility, his assignment, his duty was to find for Oswald's sole guilt. And I don't doubt for a second that that duty, that responsibility, was instilled in the Warren Commission staffers from the start too. They were out to get Oswald, and Oswald alone, from the getgo.But, it's nice, I think, that a Warren Commission lawyer should have to write an article in 2016 defending what they did in 1964. It's nice that 52 years later, they are still in the hotseat about it. I rather doubt that they expected that to happen. In fact, I suspect they thought they were putting it to bed- for the ages. Well, in this age, we're not buying it. And if things go the way I expect them to at the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston in November 2017, it's going to get hairy for the official story of the JFK assassination. Very hairy. Hairy and scary.